i've referred to this in the past as the "princess paradox".

https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2018/05/aug-31-2011-so-i-experienced-princess.html

i am an equal opportunity hater - i will hate you the same, regardless of your characteristics.

it is true that i refuse to give women any sort of deference due to their gender, and i am aware that this often rubs them the wrong way.

but, this is a reflection of my base gender egalitarianism - and their reaction is a reflection of their societal expectations, as brought on by years of sexist conditioning. 

and, i simply don't care how they react.

actually, i think that the idea that there's a gender imbalance on this page is empirically wrong.

it's kind of like accusations that i have a specific problem with islam. yes, i have a problem with islam, but it's only more intense than my problems with christianity or judaism in terms of there being a difference of scale. where is there a christian isis? there isn't one. well, there's some awful christian groups in africa, but even they really pale in terms of barbarity. but, i would advocate carpet bombing militant christian fundamentalists, too. you can take my word on that.

with the gender thing, i think you're just cherry-picking the data. i don't deny being pretty vicious towards women, but i'm also pretty vicious towards men, and perhaps you notice one more than the other due to the social conditioning - you're supposed to be more respectful to women, and i thoroughly reject that as sexist. i insist on being just as rude to women as i am to men, and that kind of frames the issue in a skewed manner. but, if you look at the issue closely, you'll see there's no actual bias, and that my attacks are pretty much 50/50. probably the single biggest target of the most vicious criticism on this page has been justin trudeau. 

so, some people may try to lie to you and confuse you and deceive you about that.

don't listen to them. consider the source...

better yet, sort through this writing on your own and see for yourself.

the intercept, huh?

this is very similar to my own analysis, this perception that everybody going back to biden on three second's notice doesn't make any sense. he doesn't mention that warren is a more rational end point. i'm sure he's thinking it.

but, it's an interesting deduction at the end - that they've forgotten why they rejected biden in the first place. ryan and i both give this class of voters a lot of credit for being independent thinkers; maybe ryan pulled something out about the effects of technology on our memories.

it still doesn't explain the totality of what happened. it's hard to even use that argument to get to a plurality, let alone an almost complete absorption of not one but two candidates on mere hours notice.

it also doesn't explain the total switch in direction. both buttigieg and klobuchar were insistent they were going forward, until mere minutes before they dropped out. there must have been a memo from head office....

i would suspect that the position that warren is angling for is education secretary.

"bob dole doesn't think jessica murray is funny."

Warren associates and the camp of former vice president Joe Biden also had talks about a potential endorsement if she drops out, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

the prisoner's dilemma is a model, and it applies in a wide variety of scenarios. i pulled out games being played between warren and klobuchar, warren and buttigieg, buttigieg and klobuchar, buttigieg and biden, biden and bloomberg and ...

i've never described warren and biden as being in this relationship, and i've actually never described warren and sanders as being in this relationship, either. sanders and biden are quite clearly not in a prisoner's dilemma.

so, the usefulness of this model is indeed coming to an end, except for one corollary - which is that, after repeatedly choosing competition over cooperation, anybody would be daft to actually trust elizabeth warren.

warren has previously demonstrated, repeatedly, that her self-interest is more valuable to her than her principles. you will recall that while she applied to be clinton's vp in 2016, she did not actually endorse bernie sanders.

bernie will take her in, because he's a fool.

but, the operative question here is if biden will have her or not; if she ends up endorsing bernie, it's going to be because biden tells her he doesn't want her around.

and, biden probably doesn't need her, at this point - she pissed away all her leverage by waiting too long.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/warren-sanders-allies-scramble-to-find-her-an-exit-ramp/ar-BB10KwF6

completely unjustified, and a ridiculous abuse of power that should be punished severely at the ballot box.

i would hope that the aclu is reacting properly, but they're kind of a misnomer, nowadays.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-declares-coronavirus-emergency-amid-worries-about-cruise-ship-passengers/ar-BB10L3EY

but, just to finish the thought on something i said yesterday.

do you remember, in the debates, when castro accused biden of not remembering what he said five seconds ago, and everybody gasped but kind of realized he was right?

that's what the general is going to be like.

and, trump will not be as gentle as julian castro was.

...but the map is all of sudden looking kind of hostile to bernie sanders.

he has to win michigan. that's not obvious, anymore.

and, he has to win washington, which is not obvious anymore, either - although probably a safer bet.

there are still more delegates to be awarded in states that sanders did well in (california, utah, colorado) than states he split (texas) or states he lost (tennessee).

the partial results currently have him down 65 delegates. he could actually make that up, by the time everything is counted.